Category Archives: Economics

Liberty Over Big Government

Michael Barone writes about the Tea Parties and the great ongoing debate about the purpose of America:

The Progressives had their way for much of the 20th century. But it became apparent that centralized experts weren’t disinterested, but always sought to expand their power. And it became clear that central planners can never have the kind of information that is transmitted instantly, as Friedrich von Hayek observed, by price signals in free markets.

It turned out that centralized experts are not as wise and ordinary Americans are not as helpless as the Progressives thought. By passing the stimulus package and the health care bills the Democrats produced expansion of government. But voters seem to prefer expansion of liberty.

The Progressives’ scorn for the Founders has not been shared by the people. First-rate books about the Founders have been best-sellers. And efforts to dismiss the Founders as slaveholders, misogynists or homophobes have been outweighed by the resonance of their words and deeds.

The Declaration of Independence’s proclamation that “all men are created equal” with “unalienable rights” to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” has proved to be happily elastic. It still sings to us today, thanks to the struggles and sacrifices of many Americans who gave blacks and women the equality denied to them in 1776.

In contrast, the early Progressives’ talk of an “industrial age” and an outmoded Constitution sounds like the language of an age now long past. Their faith in centralized planning seems naive in a time when one unpredicted innovation after another has changed lives for the better.

The “progressives” are retrogressive. A set of “elites” (who are elite only in terms of their power, not their intellect or competence) running the lives of the rest of society is the oldest idea in human history. It was opposition to such a notion on which the Constitution was based.

And central planning works no better with space policy than with any other.

Inflating The Education Bubble

The government student-loan takeover looks like it has a high potential for disaster:

…the bill’s student loan provisions will not save the $68 billion promised, and will move the country closer to a European-style socialism that has brought that continent stagnation. Going to a Soviet/U.S. Postal Service model of student-loan services goes against the sound maxim that competition is always better than monopoly. Moreover, the bill’s repayment terms will lead to increasing student-loan defaults, adding to the crushing fiscal burden on a government whose IOUs are now trusted less than those of some private corporations.

Third, the bill proceeds from a false premise. President Obama asserted Saturday that “by the end of this decade, we will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” Putting aside the nasty reality of a 45 percent six year college drop-out rate, the Labor Department forecasts that, over the next decade, there will be fewer new jobs requiring college degrees than there will be new college graduates.

But it continues to prop up Big Academia, which is supportive of all this continuing collectivism, so it has that going for it.

The Insurance Death Spiral

I’m pretty sure this was the plan all along:

So there are penalties for not purchasing insurance. But there’s no serious enforcement mechanism allowing the IRS to make sure those penalties get paid?

Given the importance of the mandate to the health reform project, this doesn’t make much sense. The law was designed to expand the number of individuals with health insurance. But without the ability to enforce the individual mandate, any expansion will likely be significantly smaller than projected.

But remember, if you like your plan, you can keep it! Untilless your insurance company goes out of business…

[Update a few minutes later]

You mean they don’t have to cover pre-existing conditions? More thoughts here and here.

Gee, do you mean that when a multi-kilopage bill is rushed though without anyone actually reading it, there could be screwups? Who would have guessed? Certainly not some of the morons in my comments section, who think that passing bills without reading them is just dandy.

Every day, November is a day closer.

[Update a couple minutes later]

And speaking of November approaching, this isn’t good new for the Dems, though it’s great news for the Republic:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans say the health care overhaul signed into law last week costs too much and expands the government’s role in health care too far, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, underscoring an uphill selling job ahead for President Obama and congressional Democrats.

…Supporters “are not only going to have to focus on implementing this kind of major reform,” says Robert Blendon, a professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard. “They’re going to have to spend substantial time convincing people of the concrete benefits of this legislation.”

This is hilarious. The president and the Democrats have spent the last fourteen months telling us how wonderful this plan is, to no avail. Now that it’s going to start to actually bite, they think that they’re going to be able to explain it better, and be more convincing? Especially when they don’t know what’s in it any more than they did before it passed?

And note, this is a Gallup poll, which means it’s “adults.” I haven’t checked Rasmussen yet, but I’m sure that the news for them from “likely voters” is even more grim. For them, that is, not for us.

The Green Pharaoh

See, he was just trying to save the Nile delta. I’m even more amused at the leftist outrage in the comments. But then, leftists, and particularly watermelons, don’t have much of a sense of humor.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I love this comment from Bernstein:

Jon Stewart is funny because of the ways he bugs his eyes out, and otherwise makes funny faces. Can’t get that effect on a blog, I’m afraid.

It’s funny ‘cuz it’s true.

Premiums Will Go Up

…and you may not be able to keep your plan. But what would the head of Aetna know?

And I’m sure that this is completely unrelated:

Americans have a pragmatic sort of optimism in adversity, and after ObamaCare’s passage, I figured that would take the form of a “wait and see” attitude. Democrats made a lot of promises about this legislation, and there would be some impulse to wait to see how this bill fulfills or fails them.

Certainly, Democrats in office had hoped for that kind of response, but thus far, they’re not getting it. That may be due to some of the unpleasant details that the media have finally reported. Businesses are having to take big charges on lost tax credits, and promises over pre-existing condition treatment raised expectations to unrealistic heights. Instead of making lives easier, the bill has already made lives more complicated.

The real test will come in Rasmussen and other polling around September. If 54% of people still want it repealed — and that opposition has remained relatively unchanged for the last several months — then Democrats won’t have anywhere to hide.

Wind sowing now. Whirlwind reaping in November.

[Update a while later]

Congressional (dis)approval ratings have approached the levels last seen in late October, 1994. Remember what happened a few days later? And it’s only March…

Asilomar Two

Here’ is the first report I’ve seen on the conference this past week on geoengineering. I would have like to attend, but didn’t have either time or money right now. I was a little disturbed by what seemed to be an absence:

Participants…split into groups representing the two broad kinds of geoengineering: methods which block solar radiation from the sun, like spreading aerosols in the stratosphere, and techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere, like growing algae blooms at sea.

…A vexing question for participants was the role of commercial companies in this controversial field. A breakout group devoted to the idea of blocking sunlight—by whitening clouds or the ocean surface, for example—couldn’t agree on whether it should propose barring for-profit companies from the enterprise.

Ignoring the issue of the role of private enterprise, what I’m reading seems very terracentric (which isn’t uncommon among the scientific community — I think it was one of the reasons that it there was so much skepticism about Alverez’ dinosaur-extinction theory). After all, if the goal is to block sunlight, the closer to the source you are, the easier the job might be. Maybe there were some space-based solutions discussed, but you can’t figure it out from this report. One of the reasons that I wanted to attend was to provide a perspective that might not otherwise be there, and it looks like my fears were born out.

I’d bet that if you proposed (say) Ehricke-type solettas, or sunshades, you’d be laughed out of the room, largely out of ignorance of space transportation economics. I would have provided a tutorial to explain why it’s foolish to extrapolate costs of current launch systems to future large-scale space access, because I’ll bet that’s exactly what most of them would do (because it’s what most people do now). I’ll look forward to a more detailed report on the conference, though, including a full list of presentations.

[Monday afternoon update]

It should be noted that I’m not advocating geoengineering. I’m just pointing out that for those who do, they shouldn’t exclude space-based solutions because of false preconceptions. It’s sort of like my attitude toward NASA. I wouldn’t weep much if the agency was defunded (other than the personal impacts on my friends who are employees and contractors). But seeing as how that’s unlikely to happen, I’ll continue to lobby to at least have the funds spent sensibly, in terms of actually advancing us in space.